DOCSLIB.ORG

Misguided Measures

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Misguided Measures The Outcomes and Impacts of Measure 11 on Oregon’s Youth The Campaign for Youth Justice (CFYJ) is a national organization dedicated to ending the practice of prosecuting, sentencing, and incarcerating youth under the age of 18 in the adult criminal justice system. CFYJ serves as a clearinghouse of information on youth prosecuted as adults and makes its tools and resources available to those interested in learning and taking action on an issue that personally affects them. CFYJ gratefully acknowledges the funders who support our work, including: Annie E. Casey Foundation, Atlantic Philanthropies, Falk Foundation, Ford Foun- dation, Fund for Nonviolence, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Open Society Foundations, Public Welfare Foundation, The California Endowment, Tow Foundation, and indi- vidual anonymous donors. Partnership for Safety and Justice (PSJ) is a statewide advocacy organization that was founded in 1999. PSJ has developed a pioneering model for our work that brings together all of those most directly affected by crime—survivors of crime, people convicted of crime, and the families of both—to advocate for a system that builds safer, healthier communities. PSJ is the first advocacy organization in the country to unite all of these constituencies. PSJ would like to thank the fol- lowing foundations and organizations for their support: Ford Foundation, Fund for Nonviolence, Meyer Memorial Trust, Northwest Health Foundation, Open Society Foundations, Public Welfare Foundation, RiverStyx Foundation, Social Justice Fund Northwest, Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program at Shelter Rock and Western States Center. Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................. 3 Chapter 1 Introduction – Measure 11 for Juveniles: What We Knew Then, and What We Know Now .................................................. 9 Chapter 2 History: Measure 11 and Automatic Transfer in Oregon ...................................... 17 Chapter 3 Overview: Pathways to Adult Court for Oregon Youth ........................................ 25 Chapter 4 Outcomes: Guilty as Charged? ....................................................................... 29 Chapter 5 The Disproportionate Racial & Ethnic Impact of Measure 11 ................................ 39 Chapter 6 Pretrial Detention: Adult Jails or Youth Detention Centers? ................................. 51 Table of Contents Table Chapter 7 Aftermath: Long-Term Impacts of Adult Convictions .......................................... 57 1 Chapter 8 Public Safety: Did Measure 11 Make Our Communities Safer? .............................. 69 Chapter 9 Recommendations ...................................................................................... 79 Methodology .......................................................................................... 83 References ............................................................................................. 85 Misguided Measures: The Outcomes and Impacts of Measure 11 on Oregon’s Youth 11 on Oregon’s and Impacts of Measure The Outcomes Misguided Measures: 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Oregon has taken a major step forward in making the juvenile justice system a model for the rest of the country. As this report went to press, Oregon legislators passed House Bill 2707, which allows youth to be held in juvenile detention facilities rather than adult jails as they await trial. Passage of this legislation demonstrates Oregon’s commitment to best practices for youth and recognition that tough crime policy is not the same as smart policy. There is so much about Oregon’s approach to juvenile justice that is smart and effective, but there is more that can be done for Oregon’s youth. This report examines additional avenues for Oregon to reexamine policies related to trying youth as adults, specifically Measure 11. Oregon voters passed Measure 11 in November 1994. The measure created new manda- tory minimum sentences for 16 crimes and required that youth charged with those crimes be tried as adults. The legislature subsequently added more crimes to Measure 11. Today, Measure 11 requires youth ages 15 years or older charged with one of 21 crimes to be pros- ecuted automatically in the adult criminal justice system and if convicted of that crime, to serve the same mandatory sentence that applies to adults. Summary Executive Fifteen years after Measure 11 was enacted, the Campaign for Youth Justice and Partner- ship for Safety and Justice embarked on a study to determine the impact that Measure 11 was having on youth in Oregon. The authors analyzed data on 3,274 young people indicted with Measure 11 offenses since 1995. The authors also looked at a subset of 759 cases handled between 2006 and 2008 to understand the current way Measure 11 is being imple- mented in the 36 Oregon counties. 3 FINDINGS We now know about the detrimental impact that Measure 11 is having on youth and the public in Oregon. We have also learned that there are better ways to help curb delinquency and rehabilitate youth than trying youth in the adult system. The passage of House Bill 2707 reflects one way in which new information about youth and the public safety system has been implemented through a change in policy. This report provides Oregonians with additional reasons to reconsider trying youth as adults. Measure 11 for juveniles has not made Oregonians any safer. 1 While serious crime by adults and by young people has declined in Oregon since the passage of Measure 11, increased imprisonment and adult convictions of youth have not driven down the crime rate. Over the three-year period from 2006 to 2008, data from the 36 Oregon counties show no discernible pattern between the number of young people charged with a Measure 11 offense and the juvenile crime rate. The data show that counties that convict more young people under Measure 11 do not see better public safety outcomes, and that counties that have sent more youth to secure custody as a result of Mea- sure 11 haven’t seen less crime. Most youth do not have the benefit of an impartial judge evaluating their case. 2 Instead, prosecutors make the final decision in 92% of the cases. Voters were promised predictability when they passed Measure 11. However, considerable variation exists in how Measure 11 is implemented by prosecutors’ offices across Oregon. This report shows that nine out of 10 young people indicted for a Measure 11 offense do not go to trial. While plea agreements are a critical tool to help overburdened courts process cases, the high rate of pleas is problematic in the youth context. The fact that 92% of the time youth are entering pleas in adult court means that there is little opportunity for the back-and-forth discussions that might happen in a juvenile courtroom—where the needs of the victim, the community, and the young person can be identified and balanced. Many youth charged with Measure 11 offenses are not the most serious 3 youthful offenders. Fifteen years ago, Measure 11 was marketed to Oregonians as a way to deal with the most serious youth offenders and ensure that those youth would get long prison sentences. However, data in this report show that the law is being applied to youth in far less serious situations. The data show that: • Most youth charged with a Measure 11 offense are convicted of a non-Measure 11 crime. Six out of 10 youth charged with a Measure 11 crime that automatically requires adult court prosecution will not be convicted of a Measure 11 crime; they will instead be convicted of a crime outside of Measure 11 parameters. Nonetheless, these youth will receive the lifelong stigma of having an adult court conviction. Misguided Measures: The Outcomes and Impacts of Measure 11 on Oregon’s Youth 11 on Oregon’s and Impacts of Measure The Outcomes Misguided Measures: 4 • One in three youth convicted of an adult offense via the Measure 11 charging process do not receive adult prison sentences. From 2006 to 2008, 36% of all the youth convicted of an adult offense via the Measure 11 charging process were eventually placed on adult probation. If these youth were truly the worst of the worst, it is hard to understand why a district attorney would agree to pleas allowing a third of youth to return directly to the community. • Youth who end up in the adult court as a result of a Measure 11 charge are not necessarily those who are at the biggest risk to reoffend. Youth who have an adult conviction have been assessed by the Oregon Youth Authority to be at lower risk to reoffend than other youth within their custody and control. In other words, Oregon is using scarce resources unnecessarily to incarcerate less serious youth sentenced under Measure 11. When a young person is charged with a Measure 11 crime, 4 he or she can spend time in an adult jail. Prior to the passage of Measure 11, there was little public discussion about where youth would be housed during their incarceration. In Oregon, if someone 16 or 17 years old is charged with a Measure 11 offense, he or she may be detained in an adult jail pretrial based on an Oregon statute that made adult jail the default place for pretrial detention. However, Oregon legislators recently passed House Bill 2707 to make juvenile detention facilities the default placement of youth held on Measure 11 charges, making it more likely that youth will now be housed in juvenile detention facilities. Measure 11 has had significant costs for all Oregonians, but it has different
Recommended publications
  • Facilitating Access to Health Care Coverage for Juvenile Justice-Involved Youth

    Facilitating Access to Health Care Coverage for Juvenile Justice-Involved Youth

    Facilitating Access to Health Care Coverage for Juvenile Justice-Involved Youth By the National Academy for State Health Policy Sarabeth Zemel, Kimm Mooney Diane Justice, Katie Baudouin The preparation of this document was supported by John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Anyone may use the content of this publication as is for educational purposes as often and for as many people as wished. All we ask is that you identify the material as being the property of the National Academy for State Health Policy. If you want to use this publication for commercial purposes in print, electronic, or any other medium, you need our permission. If you want to alter the content or form for any purposes, educational or not, you will also need to request our permission. © December 2013 Models for Change All young people should have the opportunity to grow up with a good education, get a job and participate in their communities. Creating more fair and effective juvenile justice systems that support learning and growth and promote accountability can ensure that every young person grows up to be a healthy, productive member of society. Models for Change: Systems Reform in Juvenile Justice, a MacArthur Foundation initiative, began by working comprehensively on juvenile justice reform in four states, and then by concentrating on issues of mental health, juvenile indigent defense, and racial and ethnic disparities in 16 states. Through collaboration with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Models for Change expanded its reach and is now working to replicate and disseminate successful models of juvenile justice reform in 31 states.
  • 2018 Ojdda Annual Conference

    2018 Ojdda Annual Conference

    2018 OJDDA ANNUAL CONFERENCE PRESENTERS AND WORKSHOPS Oregon Juvenile Department Directors Association Juvenile JusƟce in Oregon: Transforming Systems, Services, and CommuniƟes www.ojdda.org WIFI Network: Riverhouse Guest Password: river NASW CEU’s 11.5 Total NASW CEU’s are available for attendees. 10 clinical hours, and 1.5 non-clinical hours. All sessions except for A5, B3, and E3 are eligible for clinical CEU’s. A5, B3, and E3 are eligible for non-clinical CEU’s. Page 1 Welcome to the 2018 OJDDA Annual Conference! Dear OJDDA Attendee, Welcome to the 2018 OJDDA Conference and a HUGE thank you to the Metro Region (Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas Counties) for organizing a great event this year. Planning for this conference started the day after the 2017 conference ended and has resulted in an inspiring conference theme “Transforming Systems, Services & Communities.” Our goal in planning this conference is to provide keynote speakers and workshop sessions which are appealing to a wide range of people and a time that will be filled with inspirations, new ideas and be transforming! We encourage you to take full advantage of the sessions and keynote speakers being offered to you over the next several days and to use the time before, during breaks and after sessions to build a network with professionals to rely upon when you need help serving youth or families. The Oregon Juvenile Department Directors Association (OJDDA) was established in 1982 to act as an advocate for youth and today, this advocacy continues. OJDDA has the vision to be the leading voice in juvenile justice through shaping state and local juvenile justice policy and practices by promoting public safety through reduction of juvenile crime, utilizing evidence based practices, providing leadership that creates strategic direction and providing for a fair and equitable juvenile justice system.
  • NOT in ISOLATION Massachusetts Department of Youth Services

    NOT in ISOLATION Massachusetts Department of Youth Services

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABOUT STOP SOLITARY FOR KIDS Stop Solitary for Kids is a national campaign to end solitary confinement of youth in juvenile and adult facilities in the United States. The campaign is a joint effort by the Center for Children’s Law and Policy, the Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators, and the Justice Policy Institute. Stop Solitary for Kids aims to end solitary confinement by working with key decision makers in all three branches of government at the federal, state, and local levels through research, public education, policy reform, improved facility practices, legislative changes, training, and technical assistance. To learn more, please visit our website: www.StopSolitaryforKids.org. CAMPAIGN PARTNERS Center for Children’s Law and Policy Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators Center for Juvenile Justice Reform at Georgetown University Justice Policy Institute AGENCIES This publication would not be possible without the resources and time provided by the following agencies. Administrators and staff in these agencies participated in multiple in-person and phone interviews, responded to requests for information, and provided policies and data. Colorado Division of Youth Services Massachusetts Department of Youth Services Oregon Youth Authority Shelby County Sheriff’s Office, Memphis, Tennessee Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County 22 MassachusettsAcknowledgements Department of Youth Services stopsolitaryforkids.org FACILITIES We thank the administrators and staff of the following facilities for accommodating site visits from our staff and providing access to administrators, staff, and youth: Gilliam Youth Services Center, Denver, Colorado Lookout Mountain Youth Services Center, Golden, Colorado MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility, Woodburn, Oregon Metro Youth Services Center, Dorchester, Massachusetts Paul T.
  • Eliminating Sexual Abuse of Oregon Youth in Custody

    Eliminating Sexual Abuse of Oregon Youth in Custody

    ELIMINATING SEXUAL ABUSE OF OREGON YOUTH IN CUSTODY COMPLIANCE WITH THE 2003 NATIONAL PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION ACT 2019 PREA COMPLIANCE STATUS REPORT This report by the Oregon Youth Authority reaffirms the agency’s commitment to meeting all requirements of the 2003 National Prison Rape Elimination Act. Included in this report are past data about reported sexual abuse incidents within the agency’s close- custody facilities. Previous versions of this report included information on steps the agency has taken to reach compliance with each provision listed in the Juvenile Standards. This portion of the report has been removed as the agency began completing PREA audits in 2014. The final audit reports are posted on the agency’s website in compliance with PREA Standard § 115.403. CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL I certify that the information contained in this report is accurate and complete. Approved by: __________________________ Joe O’Leary, Director Oregon Youth Authority Date: 01/21/2021 2019 PREA Compliance Status Report prepared by: Lynn Oliver, OYA Agency PREA Coordinator 2 2019 PREA COMPLIANCE STATUS REPORT Annual Report Oregon Youth Authority TABLE OF CONTENTS History…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4 Agency-wide Statistics…………………………………………………………………………. 5 Agency Compliance Status ………………………………………………………………….. 6 Facilities Introduction and Sexual Abuse Data Comparison Eastern Oregon Youth Correctional Facility ………………………………….. 8 MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility……………………………………………. 9 Oak Creek Youth Correctional Facility…………………………………………….

  • 2018 Prea Compliance Status Report

    ELIMINATING SEXUAL ABUSE OF OREGON YOUTH IN CUSTODY COMPLIANCE WITH THE 2003 NATIONAL PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION ACT 2018 PREA COMPLIANCE STATUS REPORT This report by the Oregon Youth Authority reaffirms the agency’s commitment to meeting all requirements of the 2003 National Prison Rape Elimination Act. Included in this report are past data about reported sexual abuse incidents within the agency’s close- custody facilities. Previous versions of this report included information on steps the agency has taken to reach compliance with each provision listed in the Juvenile Standards. This portion of the report has been removed as the agency began completing PREA audits in 2014. The final audit reports are posted on the agency’s website in compliance with PREA Standard § 115.403. 2018 PREA COMPLIANCE STATUS REPORT Annual Report Oregon Youth Authority TABLE OF CONTENTS History…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4 Agency-wide Statistics…………………………………………………………………………. 5 Agency Compliance Status ………………………………………………………………….. 6 Facilities Introduction and Sexual Abuse Data Comparison Eastern Oregon Youth Correctional Facility ………………………………….. 8 MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility……………………………………………. 9 Oak Creek Youth Correctional Facility……………………………………………. 10 Rogue Valley Youth Correctional Facility……………………………………….. 11 Tillamook Youth Correctional Facility………………………………………….… 12 Camp Florence Youth Transitional Facility…………………………………….. 13 Camp Riverbend Youth Transitional Facility…………………………………. 14 Camp Tillamook Youth Transitional Facility………………………………….
  • Lane County Criminal Justice System Report Card Data Book

    Lane County Criminal Justice System Report Card Data Book

    PSCC OFFICERS CHAIR, TIM LAUE Lay Citizen VICE CHAIR, PAUL SOLOMON Lay Citizen VOTING MEMBERS FAYE STEWART Commissioner PETE KERNS Chief of Police TOM TURNER Sheriff ALEX GARDNER District Attorney MARYANN BEARDEN State Court Judge GREG HAZARABEDIAN Public Defender The Public Safety Coordinating Council’s JOAN COPPERWHEAT Community Corrections Manager ROLAND HOSKINS Criminal Justice System Report Card Data Book Youth Services ROB ROCKSTROH Health & Human January 2011 Services Director (Mental Health) KAREN GILLETTE Public Health Manager ANDREA ORTIZ Eugene City Councilor HILLARY WYLIE Springfield City Councilor JACQUE BETZ Florence Assistant City Manager Please Note: LAY CITIZENS When a new chart was added which includes updated data, a was placed by the Figure title. STEPHEN DAVIS TOM ENGLISH When the new data resulted in a change in the grade, a was added next to the new grade. DAVID WINETT DOUGLAS BAKKE NON-VOTING MEMBERS ROBERT EDWARDS OSP Representative The PSCC Criminal Justice System Report Card Data Books and Report Cards JIM CRAMER are available at www.lcog.org/safety.cfm. Follow the link to Community Safety Data Publications. Oregon Youth Authority LIANE RICHARDSON County Administrator Table of Contents Public Safety Coordinating Council Vision and Guiding Principles............................................................................ 1 2011 Report Card on the Criminal Justice System in Lane County, Oregon – Background ........................................ 2 Grading System for the Report Card............................................................................................................................
  • 2018 Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation

    2018 Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation

    2018 OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES COMPILATION CHAPTER 416 Oregon Youth Authority Published By DENNIS RICHARDSON Secretary of State Copyright 2018 Office of the Secretary of State Rules effective as of January 01, 2018 DIVISION 1 RULE DEVELOPMENT 416-001-0000 Notice Rule for Rule Making 416-001-0005 Model Rules of Procedure 416-001-0015 Mailing List Fees 416-001-0020 Copies of OYA Permanent and Temporary Rules, and Fees DIVISION 20 OFFENDER GRIEVANCE PROCESS 416-020-0000 Purpose 416-020-0010 Definitions 416-020-0020 Grievance Rights 416-020-0030 Informal Process 416-020-0040 Formal Process 416-020-0050 Appeal to the Director DIVISION 40 OFFENDER USE OF ELECTRONIC NETWORKS WITHIN OYA FACILITIES 416-040-0005 Purpose 416-040-0010 Network Access 416-040-0015 Written Authorization 416-040-0020 Internet Use DIVISION 50 FUNERAL AND BURIAL EXPENSES 416-050-0000 Purpose 416-050-0010 Allowable Expenses DIVISION 60 MEDIA RELATIONS 416-060-0005 Purpose and Policy 416-060-0010 Definitions 416-060-0015 Media Identification of Offenders 416-060-0020 Media Access to Facilities 416-060-0025 Media Facility Visitation Requirements 416-060-0030 Media Access to Offenders in Facilities 416-060-0035 Media Access to Offenders in Substitute Care 416-060-0040 Access to Offenders or OYA Facilities by Unaffiliated Persons DIVISION 70 OYA EMPLOYEE MENTAL HEALTHCERTIFICATION STANDARDS 416-070-0010 Definitions 416-070-0020 Credentialing and Certification Process 416-070-0030 Qualified Mental Health Professional (QMHP) and Treatment Services Supervisor Standards 416-070-0040
  • Forecasting Juvenile Correctional Populations in Texas

    Forecasting Juvenile Correctional Populations in Texas

    RESEARCH REPORT A SSESSMENT OF S PACE N EEDS P ROJECT July 2002 Forecasting Juvenile Correctional Populations in Texas Daniel P. Mears PROGRAM ON youth justice research for safer communities URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center 2002 The Urban Institute This document was prepared under grant number 98-JB-VX- K004 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the U.S. De- partment of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the author(s) alone and do not necessarily repre- sent the official position or policies of OJJDP, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Urban Institute, its board, or its sponsors. Report design by David Williams About the Assessment of Space Needs Project his report was prepared as part of the Assessment of The Urban Institute’s approach to conducting the As- T Space Needs Project, conducted by the Urban Institute of sessment of Space Needs Project was guided by the com- Washington, D.C. The project began with a request from ments and criticisms received from the project’s advisors the U.S. Congress. In a November 13, 1997 Conference Re- and consultants: port for Public Law 105–119, Congress requested that the U.S. Department of Justice conduct a “national assessment Advisory Committee of the supply and demand for juvenile detention space,” Dr.
  • Oregon Youth Authority 2019

    Oregon Youth Authority 2019

    Supporting the rights and needs of Oregon’s tribal youth Oregon Youth Authority Government-to-Government Report on Tribal Relations 2019 Joseph O'Leary Director The mission of the Oregon Youth Authority Nakeia Daniels is to protect the public and reduce crime by Deputy Director holding youth accountable and providing opportunities for reformation in safe environments. December 13, 2019 Provided to the Legislative Commission on Indian Services Oregon Youth Authority 530 Center St NE, Suite 500 Salem, OR 97301-3777 503-373-7205 [email protected] www.oregon.gov/oya 2 Table of Contents Oregon’s Federally Recognized Tribes 5 Highlights from 2019 5 Oregon Youth Authority 6 . Serving Oregon’s most at-risk youth . Leadership additions . American Indian/Alaska Native youth in OYA . The Youth Reformation System . Positive Human Development . Office of Inclusion and Intercultural Relations changes . Tribal Liaison/Native American Programs Coordinator change . Native American Services Coordinator change OYA’s Tribal Relations 10 . Communication Liaisons . Key Tribal Contacts . Memoranda of Understanding . Public Safety Cluster . Native American Advisory Committee . Statewide Advisory Committee . Ongoing Support OYA and Individual Tribes 13 . Klamath Tribes . Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian Reservation . Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians . Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation . Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon . Burns Paiute Tribe . Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians of Oregon . Coquille Tribe of Oregon . Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon A Shared Commitment 13 . Collaborating on Facility Programs . Reconnecting Native American youth with cultural traditions . Coordinating treatment services . Providing culturally relevant services .
  • Oregon Youth Authority 2005-2007 Biennial Report

    Oregon Youth Authority 2005-2007 Biennial Report

    Oregon Youth Authority 2005-2007 Biennial Report Guiding Oregon’s youth on the road to success. Mission Robert S. Jester, Director The mission of the Oregon Youth Authority is to protect the public and reduce crime by Phillip Lemman, Deputy Director holding youth offenders accountable and providing opportunities for reformation in 530 Center St. NE, Suite 200 Salem, Oregon 97301 safe environments. (503) 373-7205 Table of Contents Executive Summary — 4 Agency Overview — 5 Our History — 5 Summary of 2005-07 Legislatively Adopted Budget — 6 2005-07 Operational Structure — 7 Who We Serve — 8 Agency Accomplishments — 11 Youth Recidivism — 12 Safe Environments — 14 Implementing Evidence-Based Practices — 16 Gender-Specific Programming for Young Women — 71 Partnerships — 18 System of Performance Measurement — 19 Key Performance Measures — 20 Juvenile Justice Information System — 22 Agency Services — 23 OYA Facilities — 24 2005-07 Facility Accomplishments — 25 Key Initiatives — 25 OYA Community Services — 26 Parole & Probation Services — 26 Residential & Treatment Services — 26 Youth Offender Foster Care Services — 27 Diversion and Juvenile Crime Prevention — 27 2005-07 Community Services Accomplishments — 28 Key Initiatives — 28 Reformation Services — 29 Office of Minority Services — 03 Strategic Plan for 2007-09 — 31 2 For more information on OYA, visit www.oregon.gov/oya. Director’s Message Robert S. Jester, Director The Oregon Youth Authority is committed to public safety and is responsible for all operational functions related to state juvenile corrections programs. OYA is dedicated to holding youth offenders accountable for their actions and investing in opportunities for youth to learn personal responsibility, develop social skills, and make positive choices for themselves and for Oregon’s future.
  • Effective Strategies for Court-Involved Youth

    Effective Strategies for Court-Involved Youth

    EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES FOR COURT-INVOLVED YOUTH: TRENDS IN MAXIMUM JUVENILE CUSTODY AGE LIMITATIONS June 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The age at which youth must exit the juvenile justice system, or the maximum juvenile custody age, varies from state to state. In the District of Columbia, the maximum juvenile custody age is 21, meaning that youth who are committed to the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS) can remain under DYRS custody until his or her twenty-first birthday.1 If a DYRS ward commits a new crime after turning age 18, he or she must be processed through the adult justice system for the new offense.2 In these cases, it is possible for DYRS and the adult system to share joint custody over the young person.3 At present, 73% of U.S. states (37 of 51), like the District of Columbia, allow youth to remain in juvenile correctional custody until at least age 21. Fourteen states automatically sever juvenile services prior to age 21, and four of these states set the maximum juvenile custody age at 18. Although the interaction between the adult and juvenile justice systems varies by state, the bulk of laws establishing the maximum juvenile custody age reflect the belief that older adolescents benefit from the type of supports and services provided by the juvenile system. There are several reasons why remaining in juvenile custody might be appropriate for 18-20 year olds. One, research has revealed that most individuals do not achieve full brain development or the skills necessary to successfully transition into adulthood until